Tivo reported earnings btw. (speaking of the future of Tivo and what they should do.) They made money this quarter and stock is up ~8% today. A lot of the earnings beat comes from IP licensing particularly with Shaw communications. They are still working on plans to split the company into 2. They got a new CEO - Dave Shull - since the last earnings call. He worked at the WEather Channel and helped split that company into 2 and also worked at DISH. The split is expected to be finalized by 1st half 2020. They are still open to a sale of one (maybe either) of the businesses to another company. I read the earnings call transcript. Pretty hard to digest at the moment for myself. But a few takeaways. They brought 3 patents to litigation with Comcast. They were found valid. But Comcast either deleted features that infringed on these patents or worked around them and Comcast thus was found not to infringe. IN other words, Tivo got no money is the way I read it. The way the patent litigation works though is they can only bring a few patents at a time meanwhile they have hundreds that Comcast is thought to be infringing on and so they can and will continue to litigate a few patents at a time. With the end goal essentially being to pressure Comcast into settling thru death by a thousand cuts. In other words Comcast will theoretically be more open to settling the more features they have to disable on the X1. The other note in the transcript is stating 2 or 3 times they are getting out of selling hardware. Does this mean they will stop selling Tivos at retail? Or is this just part of the whole move to contract out hardware development? They mentioned AndroidTV a few times and their product for it and how that is attractive to customers. And customers meant MSOs. They talked nothing about retail customers. They did mention "operating expenses include an inventory impairment charge of $2.4 million as we continue our transition away from selling hardware products." Last I don't really understand (entirely at least) the separation of the IP and Product business. Specifically how can someone buy one of their products if another company owns the IP behind it? I don't quite get that part. I did read that one reason for separating the two is customers (MSOs) of the product business like that they don't have to deal with an IP entity. But again that is something I don't quite understand.